Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Martineau, J.
• Citation: 2011 FC 1435,(2011), 402 F.T.R. 168 (FC)
• Date: 06 October 2011

CSIC v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2011), 402 F.T.R. 168 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.030

The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-5039-11; 2011 FC 1435)

Indexed As: Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Martineau, J.

December 8, 2011.

Summary:

The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) had been designated as the sole regulatory body of immigration consultants in Canada from 2004 until June 2011. On June 30, 2011, Bill C-35 came into force, which significantly amended the manner of regulating third parties (e.g., immigrant consultants) in the immigration process. Concurrently, the CSIC's designation was revoked pursuant to the Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations made by the Governor in Council. The Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) was designated as the new regulator pursuant to the Regulations Designating a Body for the Purposes of Paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The CSIC applied for judicial review, seeking to quash the enactments which revoked its designation and designated the ICCRC as the new regulator.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The court found that there was no reason to quash the impugned enactments.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See first Aliens - Topic 11 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - [See second Aliens - Topic 11 ].

Aliens - Topic 11

Definitions and general principles - Immigration consultants - The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations were amended such that the designation of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) as the sole regulatory body of immigration consultants in Canada was revoked and the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) designated as the new regulator - The CSIC applied for judicial review, arguing that the enactments which facilitated this change were ultra vires, violated the duty of procedural fairness, and were made contrary to the Statutory Instruments Act - The Federal Court stated that as far as the legality of a piece of legislation adopted by Parliament or a Legislature was concerned, the reviewing role of the court was limited to examining its conformity with the Constitution, including the Charter and unwritten constitutional principles - A breach of the rule of law could not lead to the invalidity of a statute, except in cases where a statute had not been enacted in the correct manner and form - See paragraphs 85 to 88.

Aliens - Topic 11

Definitions and general principles - Immigration consultants - Pursuant to regulations enacted by the Governor-in-Council and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the designation of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) as the sole regulatory body of immigration consultants in Canada was revoked and the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) designated as the new regulator - The CSIC applied for judicial review, arguing that the enactments were ultra vires, violated the duty of procedural fairness (including the doctrine of legitimate expectations), and were made contrary to the Statutory Instruments Act (not registered within seven days as required by s. 9) - The Federal Court held that the impugned enactments were authorized by statute, the conditions for their enactment had been respected and there were no improper purposes or motives in changing regulators - Moreover, this was not "an egregious case" where the intervention of the court was warranted to uphold the rule of law, and as far as any duty to consult was concerned, it had been satisfied in this case - See paragraphs 85 to 179.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5.3

General - General principles - Unwritten constitutional principles - Constitutionalism and the rule of law (incl. access to justice) - [See second Aliens - Topic 11 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2501.1

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - General principles - Jurisdiction - [See first Aliens - Topic 11 ].

Statutes - Topic 5363

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Validity - Scope of authority to make - [See second Aliens - Topic 11 ].

Statutes - Topic 5387

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Enactment of regulations - Requirement of registration - [See second Aliens - Topic 11 ].

Cases Noticed:

International Association of Immigration Practitioners (IAIP) et al. v. Canada et al., [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 655; 15 C.P.R.(4th) 63; 2004 FC 630, refd to. [para. 14].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2009] 2 F.C.R. 466; 383 N.R. 200; 2008 FCA 243, refd to. [para. 14].

Onuschak v. Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants et al. (2009), 357 F.T.R. 22; 2009 FC 1135, refd to. [para. 14].

Mooney et al. v. Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (2011), 389 F.T.R. 8; 2011 FC 496, refd to. [para. 32].

Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 391 F.T.R. 100; 2011 FC 669, refd to. [para. 63].

Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 85].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 86].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 87].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473; 339 N.R. 129; 218 B.C.A.C. 1; 359 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 49, refd to. [para. 88].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113; 276 N.R. 339; 157 B.C.A.C. 161; 256 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 91].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4; 2004 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 96].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 97].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420; 164 N.R. 161; 42 B.C.A.C. 1; 67 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 100].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al. (2011), 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 100].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 101].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 101].

Canadian Wheat Board v. Canada (Attorney General) (2009), 392 N.R. 149; 2009 FCA 214, refd to. [para. 101].

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. R. - see Irving Oil Ltd., Canaport Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board.

Irving Oil Ltd., Canaport Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 101].

Canadian Association of Regulated Importers et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1994] 2 F.C. 247; 164 N.R. 342 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Jafari v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1995] 2 F.C. 595; 180 N.R. 330 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Canadian Council for Refugees et al. v. Canada, [2009] 3 F.C.R. 136; 385 N.R. 1; 74 Admin. L.R.(4th) 79; 2008 FCA 229, refd to. [para. 103].

Mercier v. Correctional Service of Canada et al. (2010), 404 N.R. 275; 320 D.L.R.(4th) 429; 2010 FCA 167, refd to. [para. 103].

Homex Realty and Development Co. v. Wyoming (Village), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1011; 33 N.R. 475, refd to. [para. 104].

Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 3; 320 N.R. 366; 2004 FCA 213, refd to. [para. 105].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 107].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134, refd to. [para. 110].

Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193; 2001 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 111].

Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 113].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan Act (B.C.) - see Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.).

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2000] 4 F.C. 264; 255 N.R. 319; 188 D.L.R.(4th) 145; 24 Admin. L.R.(3d) 279 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 115].

De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] 3 F.C.R. 655; 345 N.R. 73; 2005 FCA 436, refd to. [para. 117].

Binet v. Pharmascience Inc. et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 513; 353 N.R. 343; 2006 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 137].

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 334 N.R. 55; 2005 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 139].

Saputo Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2009), 353 F.T.R. 67; 2009 FC 1016, refd to. [para. 139].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al.

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 145].

Begg et al. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) (2005), 341 N.R. 314; 2005 FCA 362, refd to. [para. 148].

Mount Sinai Hospital Center et al. v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281; 271 N.R. 104; 2001 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 150].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (City), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 227; 345 N.R. 140; 221 B.C.A.C. 1; 364 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 150].

Reference re Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-1969, [1970] S.C.R. 777, refd to. [para. 163].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference (No. 2), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 212; 133 N.R. 88; 76 Man.R.(2d) 124; 10 W.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 168].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada, Orders of Governor-in-Council, SI/2011-731, generally [para. 5].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 91(1), sect. 91(2), sect. 91(5), sect. 91(5.1) [para. 126]; sect. 91(6) [para. 127]; sect. 91(7) [para. 126].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.), Regulations Designating a Body for the Purposes of Paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SOR/2011-142, generally [para. 5].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.), Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2011-129, sect. 4 [para. 124].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 7 [para. 173].

Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations - see Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.).

Regulations Designating a Body for the Purposes of Paragraph 91(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - see Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.).

Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-22, sect. 2 [para. 165]; sect. 9(1) [para. 164].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blake, Sara, Administrative Law in Canada (4th Ed. 2006), p. 217 [para. 100].

Bryson, Alex, and Kleiner, Morris M., The Regulation of Occupations (2010), 48 British Journal of Industrial Relations, p. 670 [para. 112].

Casey, James T., The Regulation of Professions of Canada (1994), pp. 1 to 3 [para. 136].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), p. 644 [para. 161].

Counsel:

John Callaghan, Benjamin Na and Guy Regimbald, for the applicant;

Marianne Zoric, Catherine Vasilaros and Neal Samson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on October 6, 2011, before Martineau, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on December 8, 2011.